Demise’s curse is literally the result of a mistranslation. In the Japanese version he has no relation to Ganondorf anymore than he does to Vaati or any other villain in the series. The ending in Japanese just basically states that Demise brought sin into the world which allows people to choose to be good or evil. He’s the devil of the Zelda universe (just like Hylia is the Jesus of the Zelda universe). It’s an origin story based off the Bible. Therefore Ganondorf still chooses to become who he is of his own free will (well as much as someone who was raised by two witch mothers can anyway) and it’s just bad luck he keeps coming back. I wish more people knew about the translation differences.
Differences in translations are a broader problem. If one language which I don't read or speak makes claims that contradict a language I do read in speak, when the two languages are meant to signify the same thing, that's a huge issue. That being said, I make mention of the Japanese translation. There is a link in the description to a Japanese translation and how it compares to the English. Whether the English or Japanese translation, all hate and evil flows from Demise/Demon Tribe. Does evil need this concrete explanation? Does all evil have to come from that source? That's my issue. If you'd like to share the translation you're referring to, please do, because from what I've what read, what you're ascribing to Demise is not clear to me. And if you want to get technical, the devil does not bring sin into the world, the devil tempts people to commit it. Sin is the result of human choice and exists once humans contradict the word of God, not because the devil allows them to. But that, admittedly, is splitting hairs.
I think that's why people love the iteration of Link in the Wind Waker. He has no reason to be a hero other than to save his sister. That's real courage.
He's descended from the hero, his grandma has the hero's shield as a "family heirloom." I think the king of red lions thinks link is some random kid, but fate had other plans.
@Artofjoe Nothing in Wind Waker suggests that Link is a blood descendant of the Hero of Time, and there is a considerable amount of information pointing to that thesis being incorrect, starting with the fact that the Hero of Time disappeared into the Child Timeline after defeating Ganondorf and quite literally ceased to exist in the Adult Timeline, making it impossible for him to have fathered descendants there. While all boys of a certain age are encouraged to don the garb of the Hero of Time, Link's grandmother never so much as hints at the idea that the legendary hero is a family member or relative. You may be thinking of Twilight Princess, whose Link is established to be a direct blood descendant of the Hero of Time, and who is mentored by his forefather from beyond the grave.
@@JMurrinYT when your grandma gives you the shield hanging on the wall (because it's a family heirloom) the text reads, "You got the Hero's Shield! This is the legendary shield said to have been used by the hero himself!"
I love Wind Waker Link too. I'd like to see more stories where the hero rises to meet the occasion, not because of some family connection. Also, to the comments below - just because an item is a family heirloom does not mean its provenance is with that family.
Nah, that’s Tears of the Kingdom. Everything is Zonai now. No, we will not elaborate. And Ganondorf is Bad just because, but I guess that’s Demise‘s fault.
The Zonai are a One Time Race only that is only relevant during a Time where Hyrule was *Refounded* like Fujibayashi hinted at. The Next Zelda Game will feature a new race which Nintendo will only use one time and then never again, just like they did to the Minish, The Twili and any other Non-Goron-Race in Skyward Sword
@ Which sucks ass, why can’t they introduce new ideas that will last. The series would be so much more interesting if they expanded beyond Ocarina and bring back more character races, really enrich the worldbuilding. That’s a Nintendo issue in general though, Mario has the same problem
Skyward Sword isn't perfect, but it does such a good job with the characters in it that I really like it. I like that there's at least one Zelda game that at least tries to be specific with lore. Meanwhile BOTW and TOTK are vague-posting all over the place, which i hate. They could have done better with timeline stuff, sure, but a failed attempt is better than not giving a darn.
Fair enough - though I'm not sure the need of a Zelda game is to spell out the deeper aspects of the entire series. I do agree that it's character writing is top notch.
I very much agree. The previous games, especially the Wind Waker made it seem that Ganon was evil or became evil because of the choices he made, not because he was destined to be evil. Evil is a lot more interesting when it is the product of choices, instead of a mystic force in the world.
And that's not the say we need to see the origin of that evil...but at least give us a chance to see someone's evil choices. Give us a reason to want to fight back. And don't make everyone related hahaha
I don't think I was ever bothered by that line or even considered it significant. All the prior Zelda games already existed and it was just the story acknowledging that they were going to happen with recurring elements (which was already true). If anything bothers me, it's how we got a game like SS that is the origin story of the Master Sword (another series staple) and then we get to TOTK where it's been "charging" for centuries for more power and then it "breaks" after killing a few Bokoblins. BOTW and TOTK did way more to ruin the Zelda lore imo. The only cool addition was the Depths imo which seem like the darkness/chaos that existed before the Goddesses created on top of it (and I guess that was built on in EoW storyline too iirc). Anyways, I don't blame a self-aware line at the end of a 2011 Zelda game. I blame the Zelda games as a whole for recycling a lot of characters.
@@LittleBeanGreen I know. I watched the video. I was just giving my opinion that I don't think that line really recontextualized all the other stories. (although I do think it influence BOTW what with a recurring "Calamity Ganon" being introduced [which is weird because TOTK established the earliest Ganondorf who was supposedly sealed under Hyrule castle all these generations and yet their was still multiple Ganons and another Ganondorf]) That's just my opinion, though. I feel like the line was more of a reference rather than establishing a canon (although I guess BOTW proves me wrong there). Idk. It's a bit incoherent and I think Nintendo knows that.
Demise's curse is mistranslated, btw. In the Japanese, its the curse of Demon tribe, not a curse that Demise casts on his death bed. Demise himself is just another incarnation of malice and as such is part of that curse himself.
Yeah, and looking at hiw his personality is he also acts more like a representative that does the things he does not for himself but for the Tribe of Demons as an Entirety, kinda like a Hivemind if you ask me
But I don't think that really changes anything. The point is that the rise of evil in the series is either attributed to an incarnation of Demise or an incarnation of the Demon Tribe. But why does there have to be a curse at all and why does it have to connect back to Demise and/or the Demon Tribe?
@AnthonyDGreen They make no mention of them whatsoever, not even in reference to the Triforce, even though they created it. It makes little sense for the game that tells the story of Hyrule's origin to not include the universe's origin story.
I think there is some mention of something to the effect of Hylia being a god just below the Golden Goddesses, but I may be misremembering. While I don't think SS needed that origin included, it does feel like Hylia subsumed the spots of the Golden Goddesses.
My problem is that it is not really an origin story. Where does the Demon King come from? It feels like just another cycle where he attacks, just that he curses at the end. It even has a "long time ago" backstory. OoT was way more like an origin story because you learned how Ganondorf was born and had a creation story too. The cycle thing doesn't trouble me, because it is very pagan way of thinking we also used to do in ancient Europe, and kind of Dalai Lama.
Yes, I share this feeling completely. For being an origin in the cycle of good vs. evil, it’s the most formulaic of them all. The villains motive does not go beyond the design of the ‘cycle of hatred’, nor do the rest of the trio. At least all other iterations of Zelda, Link, and Ganon show a real growth in character in the setting they portray - imo Wind Waker being the best portrayal of each character (minus Tetra who unfortunately gets the helpless princess treatment in the last half of the game.)
That's my issue: to me the cycle is obvious. It doesn't need to be connected to the reincarnations of a goddess, hero, and demon tribe. The series and it's main characters can embody those things without the narrative making such an on-the-nose plot point of it.
I'm.... not completely sure what is the point you're trying to make, more so when you bring up many points against yourself already. For starters, there is a tangible element behind each game as a product before a story first, and part of the identity of any series, videogame, book or otherwise, is to have certain elements repeat, which is just how things work, be it characters, themes, or in the case of videogames, even gameplay segregated from the narrative. Repetition is the cornerstone of all storytelling, and to try to deconstruct that from such a hyperfocused lens is, in my humble opinion, a fool's errand, more so in this series of all things. There is a grander narrative to Zelda, yes, as even back when AlttP and OoT were released, there was an effort to keep some sort of chronology to the series, but ultimately, each game tends to be self-contained for the most part, and the writers are not looking to reinvent the wheel in writing. Skyward Sword in this sense is just more of this, it just so happens to have been created as the predecessor, and even then, what gives? What do you want out of the series? New villains? A new protagonist? Someone else to wield the pieces of the Triforce? Sure, they are nice things to have now and then, but the core narrative of good vs evil just works. Your point of them becoming literal only happens here, once, amidst the many other adventures we've had before and since. And even if Demise's curse is literal, what's the problem? Ganondorf isn't the only evil we have, and if he just so happens to be born to be evil, what's stopping the same criticism to apply to the many Zeldas and LInks? We could go a step further and ask that of any reincarnating/recurring characters, heroes or villains across fantasy. We've also already had stories without the Triforce as well, so I'm further baffled. Heck, in the latest games (BotW+TotK and EoW), the Triforce itself is not even used in the conventional way as established by OoT and later reused by WW and TP, and we even got a completely redesigned Link who ditched the greens and the hat.
Either I was extremely unclear, you've misinterpreted the point, or you didn't watch the video. My issue is not with repetition or recurring themes. I make the statement that the series' repetition is generally an intuitive thing that helps us connect deeper to and across stories. My issue is that Skyward Sword, having some awareness of the rest of the series, makes a justification for these recurrences, a justification that did not need to be justified, not only because it ties the characters associated to the Triforce to archetypes that are way more literal, idealized, and uninteresting as compared to their previous counterparts, but also because, it's obvious. Repetition is the cornerstone of all storytelling, after all. This doesn't call for new protagonists or wielders of the Triforce or villains (though some every once in awhile would enrich the series, IMO). My point is exactly that the story of good vs. evil works, so explore what happens within that framework, don't tell me that there's always going to be good and evil - we know this! That's the narrative point of the franchise! EOW Triforce definitely works much more similarly to the OoT Triforce so I can't agree with you there. As far as BotW is concerned, it doesn't particularly matter what Link wears, the point is that he embodies the archetype of the hero, and that we understand the recurring entanglement of the courageous and wise against the forces of corrupted power, the Triforce being mentioned or not. It's almost as if we don't need the connections spelled out to us in order to understand their relationships.
@@LittleBeanGreen I watched the video. Thrice, to be exact, and the more I re-watched, the less I understood. i'm still unsure why you have such issue, and I say it as someone who's meh towards SS in all aspects. The story of good versus evil just works, we can agree on that, so I don't see a problem with it having a beginning or origin, and even then, SS Link's not even the first real chosen hero, as pointed out within Skyward Sword itself, to the point even the (non-canon) manga of it spun its own narrative around that first hero if briefly, and if Nintendo cared so much, they could retcon that as well and we'd be left to pick up the pieces, which to some measure they already did with EoW. I still don't understand what you mean by "justification". There was always going to be evil, there was always going to be someone to rise against it. The framework you put that when tyrants rise, the wise and the courageous will rise to stop them, is not the end all of stories we've had in the series, when adventures like Link's Awakening, Majora's Mask, and even Phantom Hourglass (to an extent) exist (thanks again, Koizumi, you're the GOAT). Demise curse or not, the clash would've happened regardless, so liking whether it being more literal or not is ultimately a matter of personal taste, same as saying that the SS characters or the archetypes as presented in SS are less interesting, because for one, I like the narrative touch of SS Link being the one to obtain the full Triforce, representing the perfect balance of the virtues in an ideal self, or that this Zelda is the only one to be interlaced SO much with the divine being Hylia's one and only mortal incarnation in the series. Could they have done more with these? Perhaps; if you don't like SS personally, that's fine, I don't like it much either, but as I see it, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Hell, it's probably why Nintendo is so hellbent on reinventing the series as well. It's not like they care much for their own continuity THAT much in the first place.
Tbf, since Zelda is a fantasy series, the line between metaphor and literal reality being blurry is kind of a given. But I do agree that the "spirit of the hero" thing holds a lot more weight if it's symbollic rather than literal
To me, in the previous entries, the bearer of wisdom is already in a place or high authority and intertwined with the gods; the hero is an ordinary boy who rises to meet fate; the villain is a monstrous tyrant. Those are already symbols being literal in the series and much more complicated, dynamic ones.
It doesn't ruin anything directly, it further established things that were already present before, what people take from there is up to them. Reincarnation, demons vs mortals and chosen ones going in a cycle were pretty prominent themes in Zelda before SS and in my experience it was a common theme in pre-SS fan works to reveal a beginning or end to that cycle too. So frankly, adressing it in-universe was just a matter of time for Nintendo.
My issue is that Nintendo didn't care about the timeline except for the one game where they did. And instead of deepening the prominent cycling themes, they took the abstraction and made it the concrete foundation for the rest of the series. The point is that evil is bound to appear and, hopefully a hero will be there to meet it, because that's life, not because characters literally reincarnate across time to wage a war they can never seem to settle.
The only problem I had with Denise's curse, until recently, was the implications it had on the agency of the villains, especially Ganondorf. I hated 5he idea of Ganondorf being a direct reincarnation of demise, just like how Link and zelda are directs reincarnation of themselves in every game (which I never had a problem with.) The problem when you try to do it with Ganondorf is that it completely dehumanizes him as person, as if he was already destined to become evil the day he was born. It takes away the personal choices he made in ocarina of time to become the evil individual he would end up growing into being, making all of that gackstoru become completely irrelevant. I overcame this disappointment in in the lore when I stopped viewing demises curse as a reincarnation of him, but more as a manifestation of his hatred, as the game says. As demise was on his deathbed, with the realization that he was never going to hold the triforce in his hands, he made the petty and resentful decision to set a curse on the people who prevented him from attaining the triforce; a curse of bad luck, that in his absence, there would always end up being someone else in his place to pursue the triforce instead, guaranteeing that even if he failed, evil itself, which was the greater force he served, would still remain in the ring to keep fighting Link and zelda after he's gone. In a way, it was a very selfless thing demise did when he laid the curse, just a very evil form of selflessness where the thing greater than himself he was serving was malevolent. Since this no longer makes Ganon an actual reincarnation of demise, just a manifestation, that means Ganondorf could have just as easily have chosen to be a better person and not become the tyrant pursuing the triforce that he did. However, if Ganondorf didn't chose to become a manifestation of demise, then somebody else would have risen up to ne the big naddie pf the series in his place, simple as. With Link and zelda I don't have much of a problem at all with them being direct reincarnations of earlier versions of themselves, mostly because those reincarnations served a very important purpose in the fight and evil; they preserve the diamonds in the rough found in the fields of all that is good and true. They forged the good in their hearts all by themselves, but decided to go a step further and guarantee that they could use their goodness far beyond its original expiry date, when they died for the first time and would have been gone forever otherwise, at least in the case of Link.
I just think a curse in general is kind of unnecessary and lame. The reincarnations of Zelda and Link feel the same. As a princess, Zelda is always going to have to be held to a higher standard, that's the nature of royalty. So for a princess to have to cultivate good judgment to save her Kingdom...I don't think she has to be a literal reincarnation of the goddess to do that. And similarly, Link is supposed to be the every man - an ordinary person who, when extraordinary circumstances arise, he rises to become extraordinary. That could be ANYONE. and the point is, Link is anyone, we just recognize him in game after game because it's been 40 years.
I don't have a problem with the ending, i have a problem with the entire story up to that point. Goddess, Goddess, Goddess plume, Goddess block, Goddess Shield, Goddess reincarnation, Isle of the Goddess, Goddess Goddess, Goddess..... Goddess. ...... Goddess
You know, it's funny you point out the whole 'takes the metaphor and makes it literal' because, like, that pops up a LOT in Japanese fiction and media when you take a step back. Their metaphors are both literal and, well, metaphoric at the same time! Not saying that to comment on Skyward Sword's use of it, but it is kinda funny in an ironic sort of way.
There is a saying when it comes to myth: the symbol is the thing. This I don't disagree with. My issue, and what I'll reiterate from a previous comment is that in the previous entries, the bearer of wisdom is already in a place of high authority and intertwined with the gods; the hero is an ordinary boy who rises to meet fate; the villain is a monstrous tyrant. Those are already symbols being literal in the series and much more complicated, dynamic ones.
I can see where you’re coming from and I think you bring up some interesting points! Personally I’ve always looked at it through the lens of choice. We know because of Totk that The Hero does not always have to be Link, we also know from Wind Waker you don’t have to be blood connected to a previous Hero to become one. I have always believed that to be a Hero you simply have to have the courage to stand up for those who cannot do it themselves. In most instances being Link. On the flip side ganon also has the choice to push others aside. There are a lot more examples of bad people other than ganon laying waste to Hyrule. I’ve always disliked the fandoms obsession with a “good guy” Ganondorf, because it’s not who he is that makes him bad it’s his choices. Which is why I think a story about a bad Zelda would be ten times more interesting. Owing to what you said at the beginning. Skyward Sword is one of my favs and I actually really like the lore introduced. But that’s also just my opinion. All in all this is a pretty good video. Keep Up the great work!
I adore Skyward Sword, but I have long said that, without Skyward Sword, there would have been no Breath of the Wild. For all the things I love about Skyward Sword, it set the stage for changing the story so much that The Legend of Zelda could be left behind in favor of Elder Souls or Dark Scrolls or whatever with a thin Zelda-colored coat of paint. Back when gamers were picking between Skyward Sword and Skyrim, I was the only person I knew personally who stuck with Skyward Sword. My loyalty was rewarded by Zelda becoming Skyrim five and a half years later. I will always love Skyward Sword, but I will likewise always despise what became of the series as a result.
There is a lot of Skyward Sword in Breath of the Wild from a gameplay perspective. You can see the nuggets of what would become later mechanics....Nintendo just blew open the segmented world. Skyward Sword had some great dungeons. I would've been awesome to see what dungeons like that would've looked like in an open world, but alas.
Skyward Sword was 100% made as a story and timeline thing and very very much Hyrule Historia had it in mind. At that time they were very much promoting and minding Zelda Lore, and it was a big marketing deal that this game was "the beginning of Zelda" in all but direct words. There may be some dissonant values here, perhaps a bit of a cultural clash, but I believe it's meant to be more of like "this is what destiny has presented to you, and it's up to you what do you do with it" You're given a great power, or chosen for a great mission, and it's on your hands what it means. It's less of a cool trait you have, and more of an unfair responsability placed on you. And it leaves you broken for something you didn't ask for, yet you chose to go through nonetheless. Ocarina of Time, in particular, is very much a story about the choices of people past breaking the people present. I always interpreted Ganondorf, of all characters, as someone so obsessed with his "destiny" as ruler and king that he succumbed to it and all it means, believing he is at the top of all the chains of hatred and revenge and power, yet shackled by it. A king of a chessboard raging against the Gods for a destined prize, forever unable to be freed. It was his choice to pursue world conquest, but all because he believes it's his birthright. (I basically always considered Twinrova the true villain of Ocarina of Time, they're the ones that shaped Ganondorf into who he is: the "gerudo demon king, ruler of the world" is nothing but their pet project) Zelda similarly being, chosen, by prophetic visions and powers-- a big part of her traditional character, aside her relation to that tradition itself, is her relation to a responsability placed onto her. Her being chosen is less that she has the wisdom for it, and more that she now has a literal divine responsability to save the world. And, what makes Zelda as a meta character interesting is the various ways in that *someone can't possibly be able to handle that responsability* -- she messing up on what to do has been a narrative point since a Link to the Past, in Ocarina of Time she essentially is a child that in no way could've and spends the rest of her life dealing with having failed something impossible. Same with the spirit of the hero. It's a call to adventure, imposed on you by others, and that will leave you broken with part of your life lost. Do you accept? Are we even going to explain to you the magnitude of what you're chosen for? There *is* a tragedy to Link's quest. Of even doing the "right thing" because he wants to. That's why Wind Waker Link stands out, _he_ sets to adventure, nobody calls him. He'll break all his bones by himself.
I think this is a good take and one I generally agree with but it seems to me that ALL of that was an implicit theme of the series. Ganondorf and Zelda are foils - two characters with the weight of kingdoms on their shoulders and the consequences of separate actions. Link is the ordinary that must become extraordinary. That recurring theme runs through all Zelda games to the point that it deepens the more familiar you are with the series. To have a plot point spell out why the cycle exists, who and what are incarnations or will be reincarnations or blood or whatever..to me that is all made less interesting by SS than what came prior.
I wish the Zelda series completely moved on from Ganon as the villain in every game. Literally all of the other villains- Majora, Vaati, Zant, Ghirahim, Hilda- they were all more interesting. Null was a step in the right direction.
I like Skyward Sword but it didn't really work for me as an origin story for the Zelda series. I hope they embrace BotW being a hard reboot and ignore the lore from the traditional Zeldas to start fresh. Better yet, ignore the lore added from the open world Zeldas too. It was fun having a timeline but it became ridiculous, so lets just stick with standalone stories.
My personal biases aside, I've always had an issue with the fact that these things that are supposed to be the origins of the story and characters we've come to know and love barely resemble them. It feels like a retcon, even though it's not. When Demise laid out the curse, all I could think was "Bro, who TF even are you?"
Seems like they wanted to raise each archetype to its highest potential so Zelda is a literal goddess, the villain is a literal demon, and Link...well he's a human so we're not sure what to do with him and it all feels like a step too far.
@LittleBeanGreen yeah, we can't forget that the cool and mystical master sword is now an overbearing blue C3PO for some reason. They even doubled down on this in TOTK.
It kinda ruined the "lore" by putting too much emphasis on giving the series concrete "lore" to begin with. Zelda used to have the same kind of "every game is standalone, but we'll occasionally do callbacks and allusions for fun" attitude as the other main Nintendo properties. Skyward Sword got things bogged down too much in Star Wars Prequels-esque over focus on retrofitting things into some grand continuity that probably didn't exist at the time the game was made and definitely didn't exist when most of the previous games were made. Now Zelda is bifurcated between games that dispense with dungeons almost completely and focus more and more on lore and history, and games that straight up adopt toy aesthetics to show how they're going full arcadey. The best Zelda games, the big 3D ones from Ocarina to Twilight and the almost all great handheld ones, were in a middle ground where you'd have decent self-contained stories with memorable characters like Midna, Linebeck, and Marin, but not so much emphasis on retreading the lore about the Triforce and the main three's relationships. Much like the Star Wars Prequels and Sequels, it sucked some of the magic out of the universe by making it too lore heavy rather than letting things remain unspoken and implied.
Demise's curse is a lamer version of Ganondorf's final words in OoT (then the earliest entry in the timeline), where he vows to return and "exterminate your descendants." Instead of Ganondorf himself showing agency and seeking revenge, Skyward Sword takes away the agency of Ganondorf, Link, and Zelda for all future games, the events of which were preordained. Combined with Skyward Sword replacing the Golden Goddeses with the figure of Hylia, whom Zelda is said to be the mortal incarnation of, it was an early example of Fujibayashi's disregard for Zelda's previously-established continuity, which became even more blatant in TotK.
No. It was *Tears* that ruined everything. TotK's story is bad, Fs with pre-established key lore aspects, absolutely shatters all the Master Sword's reputation, unga bunga buff Dorf with little to no ambition other than "me strongest there is" uninteresting, nearly everyone forgot who you were despite this game taking place a mere 4-6 years after Wild, Rauru existing is an insult, no Fi, no breaking of the Demise curse despite it being falsely hinted being the case what with all the Skyward Sword PR this game got (I distinctly remember Skyward Sword being advertised as heavily linked to TotK somehow which, again, is misleading as on Nintendo's part), no dog petting, no hookshot spiderman swinging with the physics being suuuuch a driving factor in these newer Zelda games, no underwater exploration instead a damp dark smelly overgrown cave can't see jack, COLLOSAL missed opportunity to hitch the princess with her handsome knight in shining armor, no stakes since Zelda's sacrifice was reversed giving the story little to no agency or consequence, Link as a protagonist felt nonexistent feels like everyone else was the star of the show not the guy who's saving all their 🫏s, no Link backstory before any of this went down aka no Arryl 2 or Granny 2 aka NOT WIND WAKER, didn't make me cry like Twilight Princess, dungeons are STILL NOT dungeons (pulling a couple levers to open a door and then be treated with literally the same copy-paste cutscene at the very end with each champion? Yeah naw), sky islands hardly anything worth noting although they are pretty asf to look at, I was expecting a totally NEW revamped endgame super Saiyan master sword golden tier 4 legendary new hilt new everything but naw same design with a booboo scar and hilariously less powerful... Hoverbike completely and utterly borks any and all """"""""dungeon""""""""" traversal (I literally just flew over to all the switches in the fire """"""""""""temple"""""""""""""" with the hoverbike making it all redundant) and it PALES in comparison to THE Master Cycle the TRUE vehicle worth having and using.
@@LittleBeanGreen I'm half-trolling lol, as in expressing how I overall feel towards the game with a pinch of strawman 😂 But yes I am serious about the story. Skyward Sword *enriched* the lore (especially with regards to Evil's Bane) while Tears scrambled it entirely, practically spat in its face.
@@Giggles_iJest You forgot the fact they dropped the subplot of the malice (stupidly renamed gloom since it's miasma in JP both times) slowly poisoning the land and effecting the people, which would've tied SS and other details in other games together a lot better. Plus, just the overall factor of TotK being a very bad mash up of OoT, BotW, and SS all together, but doesn't do any elements anywhere near as good as the predecessors.
I don't think that's true because whether the curse is above Demise or of his larger tribe, it still mentions how evil is an incarnation of either one, and that the cycle of violence is a product of the on-the-nose curse.
@@LittleBeanGreen In the majority of the situations, it is. If you don't know JP, the fact that Zelda is a priestess (a Miko, not a priestess in the Western sense) in Skyward Sword can be lost in translation. Demise's name is another example: he is called Shouen no Mono, aka Bringer of Desruction, but the english one is just called Demise,, which does not show who exactly he is. And the fact that the curse comes from the Demon Tribe, we have no idea who really came up with this concept, Demise is aware that exists, and now we are.
@@mercianthane2503 Zelda being a Miko seems pretty consistent with what I'd consider (I looked it up and thought 'oh yeah, this is what she is). So not knowing the word doesn't take away from what can be inferred, in my estimation. I don't have an issue with Demise's name or misnaming or whether a curse is his or the tribe's from which he hails. I just think the curse is lame.
@@LittleBeanGreen Unless the curse of Demise is inspired by Shinto or the concept of Samsara. Since Skyward Sword, I've seen that the franchise is much more inspired by native japanese religion, folklore and traditions, and adding some elements from Hinduism too. Maybe there lies the reason of the Demon Tribe's Curse.
I love when Link is a nobody, just a dude who is standing up to do right and fight against wrongs. That’s one reason I think Wind Waker has one of the strongest stories in the series tbh … still love SS for many reasons, but it introducing the curse of Demise does cheapen some things as you say, and Zelda fanatics (including me) end up clinging HARD to “rules” that don’t really need to be there. Great work on this one LBG
Thanks for watching, Cap. I consider it a Star Wars midichlorian issue - a spiritual force (or in Zelda's case, a recurring theme) given a rationalization that doesn't really need to be rationalized...I didn't even consider the effect of creating 'rules,' as you say, and how that would be incredibly hard to disregard.
Sorry, but this is a pretty illiterate take on the whole cycle thing. Granted, a lot of it has to do with the fact that most Western audiences are pretty illiterate when it comes to Japanese religion and mythology, this comment section is already proof enough of that. And NOA's localization team hasn't exactly made things any easier, probably because they are careful to downplay it in order to not upset religious types. But still, if you are gonna do a proper critique of this kind of things, you should make a bit of a bigger effort than just looking up articles about possible mistranslations in wiki articles made by people whose JLPT level doesn't go beyond N3. There are many places I could start with for explaining this, but I guess the first and foremost is how people have a very poor grasp of what reincarnation is to Japanese people. As in, it's not a fantasy trope, but an actual religious believe they actually have in real life. Being surprised at its appearance in a Japanese story is like being surprised at the appearance of analogues to Heaven and Hell in a story made by Westerners of a Christian tradition. The thing is, contrary to popular believe, the first game to explicitly mention reincarnation in the series was NOT "Skyward Sword". It was "The Wind Waker". This is something that has made me go up the walls for decades, because so many people to this day still believe that WW Link has "no relation to the hero whatsoever". But like I've already said somewhere else, people are too enamored with the "Link is literally me" narcisist fantasy to even register when Ganondorf explicitly says WW Link is the Hero of Time reborn after the battle with Puppet Ganon (and before someone tries to pull this off, no, it was not a mistranslation. He calls him 時の勇者の生まれかわり in Japanese, literally "the reincarnation of the Hero of Time). What King of Red Lions says earlier in the game was basically a red herring, not to mention that he seemed to correct Yabun about this the Hero of Winds being literally the same incarnation as the Hero of Time. If you read enough Japanese media, you should know this is far from the ordinary. I've lost count of how many Japanese stories suddenly bring up the reincarnation of the characters, seemingly out of nowhere, and Western fans being confused at it and demanding explanations about how it exactly works. But like I said, for Japanese people reincarnation is not a fantasy trope. So when it appears, they don't perceive it as a new lore point being established, but rather the characters verbalizing something Japanese audiences presumed was the case from the beginning. Again, the way Westerners try to nitpick the way it works would be the equivalent of Japanese audiences demanding explanations about how Heaven and Hell (or analogues of thereof) exactly work in a Christian-culture based story. How many sins you have to commit exactly to go to Hell? Which kind of sins send you to total damnation and which ones are given a pass? Do sins only count if you do them multiple times, or do they become a permanent stain in your soul even if you do them just once? Is it a Catholic interpretation, where you can purge your sins by repenting and confessing, or a Protestant tradition, in which only God can forgive you, so you don't know for sure until you die? Does Purgatory exist? If so, how many years do you spend there? Wouldn't Heaven get boring eventually? Ridiculous, isn't it? Well, the same applies to the way people try to overanalyze reincarnation in Japanese stories, the Zelda series included. Going more into your character about predestined heroes, which I guess is a bigger complaint, that's also pretty big misunderstanding. Just because you reincarnate, that doesn't mean whatever happens in your next life is completely predetermined, not more than things are predetermined in your current life moving forward. For starters, the Hero is always put to the test in most, if not all incarnations. Yes, this is because of gameplay reasons, but it's also part of how Japanese people perceive reincarnation. Not to mention that the Hero and the Goddess are NOT guaranteed to win. Even before Hyrule Historia introduced the "Fallen Timeline" nonsense (a story for another day), we had the Hero of Time failing at preventing Ganondorf from getting his hands on the Triforce. Sure, they defeat it 7 years later, but I'd argue the fact that Ganondorf rose to power puts a dent on the "predestined" argument. Ditto "Breath of the Wild" and the Great Calamity, by the way. Of course, we know at the end of each story the hero is going to win in the end. But that's more because of storytelling conventions and expectations, not because reincarnation makes things predetermined. Then there's the whole Zelda being the goddess Hylia mortal form, which is based on another Japanese culture artifact, albeit to be fair, this one is less well known. Namely, the concept of "arahitogami" (現人神), or "akitsukami" (現御神), or "manifest god", in which it was believed that the Emperor of Japan was both a descendant and a reincarnation of the Goddess Amaterasu. This is something that was believed since at least the 8th century, but it was abolished after World War II (for now. I think the believe was on and off throughout the centuries, but I have to fact check this last one). So what SS did was to essentially apply that concept to Zelda herself with the Goddess Hylia. Now, to be fair, this isn't something as ingrained in Japanese culture as just regular reincarnation, but it's not something that would surprise them all that much either. Then, on a more personal note, why does making reincarnation explicit devalue anything compared to keeping things vague? I just don't get it. Well, at least not beyond the aforementioned "Link is literally me" fantasy, in which apparently people can't relate to characters unless they match themselves perfectly, for some reason, and I guess being "a predestined hero" puts a dent on that. And before you mention it, yeah, I know the developers have always said that Link is just an avatar for the player, but I've always called BS on that. It shows a level of media illiteracy on the developers' part that is frankly quite worrisome. True avatar characters just aren't like Link at all. He's at best a hybrid of an avatar and an established character, and only because he's a silent protagonist. Apart from that, there's little to nothing about Link for him to truly count as a true player avatar beyond what any other type of character is supposed to be: he always has a well established backstory, pre established relationships, and even broad yet well defined character traits in which the player has little to no say about. Anyway, sorry for the text wall, but this is something that truly annoys me.
I agree with you - to me it feels like SS overanalyzed reincarnation and gave reasons for it that weren't necessary as a justification for Nintendo's soon to be published timeline. I'm not surprised by reincarnation, I'm disappointed that it was explained to me when I didn't ask for it. It was largely implied throughout the whole series and we could have discussions about it. Although I would argue my preference would be that they weren't reincarnations, not in the literal sense but that's besides the point. I'll offer a Western metaphor to make my point more clear: Imagine a long-running series that takes place in a fallen world where a priest, through his holy deeds, tries to return order and a conman, swindling and manipulative, is always sowing chaos. Over time, though iterations of these characters change and grow, complexities get added, nuances introduced, when we play this series you know you will be the priest battling against the conman. Then imagine, once this series is long established, that an entry comes along that says hey - did you know the priest is actually literally God? Did you know the conman is actually literally the Devil? Did you know that every game is just the battle between God and the Devil finding each other again and again forever? If you find that more interesting, great - I don't. And that's really my point. One interpretation isn't inherently better than the other but I prefer to have my characters not so on-the-nose. For the game to say 'these three 'souls' are locked in eternal combat'...that is less interesting to me than people of their time rising to the occasion (except Link, who apparently always has the hero's blood which as I say in the video, I find to be a tired trope). Just as a last bit: Zelda is made by a Japanese company but steeped in Western fantasy folklore. To me that doesn't make it either Eastern or Western, but a weird bit of both, which probably explains its broad popular appeal and longevity. In that same way, Link is his own character but also a vessel for the player to project onto. That's pretty interesting.
for me the spirit of hero and all just symbolizes that always there will be evil(demise,ganon, vaati nightmares), good(zelda) and someone who is not necessary neither and is an avarage guy but has to fight evil or otherwise it will destroy everything he has and thus himself becomes a hero
The problem with SS is instead of writing an INTERESTING story, they tried to make an "Epic" one. Wind Waker and TP and Oot and MM all had UNIQUE stories that Nintendo WANTED to tell. SS felt like they were forced to make a beginning to the series and its apparent they didnt have passion for it
The relationship with Link and Zelda is definitely the best in the series but I understand what you mean about the story as a whole. For an origins story they definitely could have done better. All the games before SS talked about the three golden goddesses but then SS explains that who they really worship is Hylia and apparently its ALWAYS been that way.
I think your distinction between interesting and epic is a good one, but I also think (to the comment above) the writing of Link and Zelda's relationship, and some of the side character writing as well, is some of the series' best.
TP is set up more as an actual epic fantasy tale though. SS more so just seems to be influenced by whatever Fujibayashi feels needs to be included within the Zelda series. Because he made Minish Cap as well, and now botw/totk. He very much likes setting up an early relationship with Zelda, before taking her away from the player to save, all while setting her up as this extra form of a divine entity.
Demise’s curse is literally the result of a mistranslation. In the Japanese version he has no relation to Ganondorf anymore than he does to Vaati or any other villain in the series. The ending in Japanese just basically states that Demise brought sin into the world which allows people to choose to be good or evil. He’s the devil of the Zelda universe (just like Hylia is the Jesus of the Zelda universe). It’s an origin story based off the Bible.
Therefore Ganondorf still chooses to become who he is of his own free will (well as much as someone who was raised by two witch mothers can anyway) and it’s just bad luck he keeps coming back. I wish more people knew about the translation differences.
yes
Differences in translations are a broader problem. If one language which I don't read or speak makes claims that contradict a language I do read in speak, when the two languages are meant to signify the same thing, that's a huge issue.
That being said, I make mention of the Japanese translation. There is a link in the description to a Japanese translation and how it compares to the English. Whether the English or Japanese translation, all hate and evil flows from Demise/Demon Tribe. Does evil need this concrete explanation? Does all evil have to come from that source? That's my issue. If you'd like to share the translation you're referring to, please do, because from what I've what read, what you're ascribing to Demise is not clear to me.
And if you want to get technical, the devil does not bring sin into the world, the devil tempts people to commit it. Sin is the result of human choice and exists once humans contradict the word of God, not because the devil allows them to. But that, admittedly, is splitting hairs.
I think that's why people love the iteration of Link in the Wind Waker. He has no reason to be a hero other than to save his sister. That's real courage.
He's descended from the hero, his grandma has the hero's shield as a "family heirloom." I think the king of red lions thinks link is some random kid, but fate had other plans.
@Artofjoe Nothing in Wind Waker suggests that Link is a blood descendant of the Hero of Time, and there is a considerable amount of information pointing to that thesis being incorrect, starting with the fact that the Hero of Time disappeared into the Child Timeline after defeating Ganondorf and quite literally ceased to exist in the Adult Timeline, making it impossible for him to have fathered descendants there. While all boys of a certain age are encouraged to don the garb of the Hero of Time, Link's grandmother never so much as hints at the idea that the legendary hero is a family member or relative. You may be thinking of Twilight Princess, whose Link is established to be a direct blood descendant of the Hero of Time, and who is mentored by his forefather from beyond the grave.
@@JMurrinYT when your grandma gives you the shield hanging on the wall (because it's a family heirloom) the text reads, "You got the Hero's Shield! This is the legendary shield said to have been used by the hero himself!"
@ Also I never said "Hero of Time" I said "hero"
I love Wind Waker Link too. I'd like to see more stories where the hero rises to meet the occasion, not because of some family connection.
Also, to the comments below - just because an item is a family heirloom does not mean its provenance is with that family.
Nah, that’s Tears of the Kingdom. Everything is Zonai now. No, we will not elaborate. And Ganondorf is Bad just because, but I guess that’s Demise‘s fault.
The Zonai are a One Time Race only that is only relevant during a Time where Hyrule was *Refounded* like Fujibayashi hinted at.
The Next Zelda Game will feature a new race which Nintendo will only use one time and then never again, just like they did to the Minish, The Twili and any other Non-Goron-Race in Skyward Sword
@ Which sucks ass, why can’t they introduce new ideas that will last. The series would be so much more interesting if they expanded beyond Ocarina and bring back more character races, really enrich the worldbuilding. That’s a Nintendo issue in general though, Mario has the same problem
I hope that's not something that becomes a narrative crutch: 'Oh, Ganondorf? Yeah he is how he is because of the Demon Curse, duh."
I loathe the Zonai as well. Fixating Ganondorf’s hate on Rauru was a huge misstep
Skyward Sword isn't perfect, but it does such a good job with the characters in it that I really like it. I like that there's at least one Zelda game that at least tries to be specific with lore. Meanwhile BOTW and TOTK are vague-posting all over the place, which i hate. They could have done better with timeline stuff, sure, but a failed attempt is better than not giving a darn.
Fair enough - though I'm not sure the need of a Zelda game is to spell out the deeper aspects of the entire series. I do agree that it's character writing is top notch.
I very much agree. The previous games, especially the Wind Waker made it seem that Ganon was evil or became evil because of the choices he made, not because he was destined to be evil.
Evil is a lot more interesting when it is the product of choices, instead of a mystic force in the world.
And that's not the say we need to see the origin of that evil...but at least give us a chance to see someone's evil choices. Give us a reason to want to fight back. And don't make everyone related hahaha
I don't think I was ever bothered by that line or even considered it significant. All the prior Zelda games already existed and it was just the story acknowledging that they were going to happen with recurring elements (which was already true). If anything bothers me, it's how we got a game like SS that is the origin story of the Master Sword (another series staple) and then we get to TOTK where it's been "charging" for centuries for more power and then it "breaks" after killing a few Bokoblins. BOTW and TOTK did way more to ruin the Zelda lore imo. The only cool addition was the Depths imo which seem like the darkness/chaos that existed before the Goddesses created on top of it (and I guess that was built on in EoW storyline too iirc).
Anyways, I don't blame a self-aware line at the end of a 2011 Zelda game. I blame the Zelda games as a whole for recycling a lot of characters.
I don't blame the Zelda games for reusing Link and Zelda. I do blame them for having to rationalize with an in-game plot why they do.
@@LittleBeanGreen I know. I watched the video. I was just giving my opinion that I don't think that line really recontextualized all the other stories. (although I do think it influence BOTW what with a recurring "Calamity Ganon" being introduced [which is weird because TOTK established the earliest Ganondorf who was supposedly sealed under Hyrule castle all these generations and yet their was still multiple Ganons and another Ganondorf])
That's just my opinion, though. I feel like the line was more of a reference rather than establishing a canon (although I guess BOTW proves me wrong there). Idk. It's a bit incoherent and I think Nintendo knows that.
Demise's curse is mistranslated, btw. In the Japanese, its the curse of Demon tribe, not a curse that Demise casts on his death bed. Demise himself is just another incarnation of malice and as such is part of that curse himself.
Yeah, and looking at hiw his personality is he also acts more like a representative that does the things he does not for himself but for the Tribe of Demons as an Entirety, kinda like a Hivemind if you ask me
But I don't think that really changes anything. The point is that the rise of evil in the series is either attributed to an incarnation of Demise or an incarnation of the Demon Tribe. But why does there have to be a curse at all and why does it have to connect back to Demise and/or the Demon Tribe?
The Golden Goddesses were also scrapped for SS, much to my chagrin.
Scrapped how?
@AnthonyDGreen They make no mention of them whatsoever, not even in reference to the Triforce, even though they created it. It makes little sense for the game that tells the story of Hyrule's origin to not include the universe's origin story.
I think there is some mention of something to the effect of Hylia being a god just below the Golden Goddesses, but I may be misremembering. While I don't think SS needed that origin included, it does feel like Hylia subsumed the spots of the Golden Goddesses.
@@LittleBeanGreen Aren't their names mentioned in the songs that you need to play to be able to enter the Sairen?
My problem is that it is not really an origin story. Where does the Demon King come from? It feels like just another cycle where he attacks, just that he curses at the end. It even has a "long time ago" backstory. OoT was way more like an origin story because you learned how Ganondorf was born and had a creation story too.
The cycle thing doesn't trouble me, because it is very pagan way of thinking we also used to do in ancient Europe, and kind of Dalai Lama.
Yes, I share this feeling completely. For being an origin in the cycle of good vs. evil, it’s the most formulaic of them all. The villains motive does not go beyond the design of the ‘cycle of hatred’, nor do the rest of the trio. At least all other iterations of Zelda, Link, and Ganon show a real growth in character in the setting they portray - imo Wind Waker being the best portrayal of each character (minus Tetra who unfortunately gets the helpless princess treatment in the last half of the game.)
That's my issue: to me the cycle is obvious. It doesn't need to be connected to the reincarnations of a goddess, hero, and demon tribe. The series and it's main characters can embody those things without the narrative making such an on-the-nose plot point of it.
I'm.... not completely sure what is the point you're trying to make, more so when you bring up many points against yourself already. For starters, there is a tangible element behind each game as a product before a story first, and part of the identity of any series, videogame, book or otherwise, is to have certain elements repeat, which is just how things work, be it characters, themes, or in the case of videogames, even gameplay segregated from the narrative. Repetition is the cornerstone of all storytelling, and to try to deconstruct that from such a hyperfocused lens is, in my humble opinion, a fool's errand, more so in this series of all things. There is a grander narrative to Zelda, yes, as even back when AlttP and OoT were released, there was an effort to keep some sort of chronology to the series, but ultimately, each game tends to be self-contained for the most part, and the writers are not looking to reinvent the wheel in writing.
Skyward Sword in this sense is just more of this, it just so happens to have been created as the predecessor, and even then, what gives? What do you want out of the series? New villains? A new protagonist? Someone else to wield the pieces of the Triforce? Sure, they are nice things to have now and then, but the core narrative of good vs evil just works. Your point of them becoming literal only happens here, once, amidst the many other adventures we've had before and since. And even if Demise's curse is literal, what's the problem? Ganondorf isn't the only evil we have, and if he just so happens to be born to be evil, what's stopping the same criticism to apply to the many Zeldas and LInks? We could go a step further and ask that of any reincarnating/recurring characters, heroes or villains across fantasy. We've also already had stories without the Triforce as well, so I'm further baffled.
Heck, in the latest games (BotW+TotK and EoW), the Triforce itself is not even used in the conventional way as established by OoT and later reused by WW and TP, and we even got a completely redesigned Link who ditched the greens and the hat.
Either I was extremely unclear, you've misinterpreted the point, or you didn't watch the video.
My issue is not with repetition or recurring themes. I make the statement that the series' repetition is generally an intuitive thing that helps us connect deeper to and across stories. My issue is that Skyward Sword, having some awareness of the rest of the series, makes a justification for these recurrences, a justification that did not need to be justified, not only because it ties the characters associated to the Triforce to archetypes that are way more literal, idealized, and uninteresting as compared to their previous counterparts, but also because, it's obvious. Repetition is the cornerstone of all storytelling, after all. This doesn't call for new protagonists or wielders of the Triforce or villains (though some every once in awhile would enrich the series, IMO). My point is exactly that the story of good vs. evil works, so explore what happens within that framework, don't tell me that there's always going to be good and evil - we know this! That's the narrative point of the franchise!
EOW Triforce definitely works much more similarly to the OoT Triforce so I can't agree with you there. As far as BotW is concerned, it doesn't particularly matter what Link wears, the point is that he embodies the archetype of the hero, and that we understand the recurring entanglement of the courageous and wise against the forces of corrupted power, the Triforce being mentioned or not. It's almost as if we don't need the connections spelled out to us in order to understand their relationships.
@@LittleBeanGreen
I watched the video. Thrice, to be exact, and the more I re-watched, the less I understood.
i'm still unsure why you have such issue, and I say it as someone who's meh towards SS in all aspects. The story of good versus evil just works, we can agree on that, so I don't see a problem with it having a beginning or origin, and even then, SS Link's not even the first real chosen hero, as pointed out within Skyward Sword itself, to the point even the (non-canon) manga of it spun its own narrative around that first hero if briefly, and if Nintendo cared so much, they could retcon that as well and we'd be left to pick up the pieces, which to some measure they already did with EoW.
I still don't understand what you mean by "justification". There was always going to be evil, there was always going to be someone to rise against it. The framework you put that when tyrants rise, the wise and the courageous will rise to stop them, is not the end all of stories we've had in the series, when adventures like Link's Awakening, Majora's Mask, and even Phantom Hourglass (to an extent) exist (thanks again, Koizumi, you're the GOAT). Demise curse or not, the clash would've happened regardless, so liking whether it being more literal or not is ultimately a matter of personal taste, same as saying that the SS characters or the archetypes as presented in SS are less interesting, because for one, I like the narrative touch of SS Link being the one to obtain the full Triforce, representing the perfect balance of the virtues in an ideal self, or that this Zelda is the only one to be interlaced SO much with the divine being Hylia's one and only mortal incarnation in the series. Could they have done more with these? Perhaps; if you don't like SS personally, that's fine, I don't like it much either, but as I see it, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
Hell, it's probably why Nintendo is so hellbent on reinventing the series as well. It's not like they care much for their own continuity THAT much in the first place.
Tbf, since Zelda is a fantasy series, the line between metaphor and literal reality being blurry is kind of a given. But I do agree that the "spirit of the hero" thing holds a lot more weight if it's symbollic rather than literal
To me, in the previous entries, the bearer of wisdom is already in a place or high authority and intertwined with the gods; the hero is an ordinary boy who rises to meet fate; the villain is a monstrous tyrant. Those are already symbols being literal in the series and much more complicated, dynamic ones.
It doesn't ruin anything directly, it further established things that were already present before, what people take from there is up to them. Reincarnation, demons vs mortals and chosen ones going in a cycle were pretty prominent themes in Zelda before SS and in my experience it was a common theme in pre-SS fan works to reveal a beginning or end to that cycle too. So frankly, adressing it in-universe was just a matter of time for Nintendo.
My issue is that Nintendo didn't care about the timeline except for the one game where they did. And instead of deepening the prominent cycling themes, they took the abstraction and made it the concrete foundation for the rest of the series. The point is that evil is bound to appear and, hopefully a hero will be there to meet it, because that's life, not because characters literally reincarnate across time to wage a war they can never seem to settle.
The only problem I had with Denise's curse, until recently, was the implications it had on the agency of the villains, especially Ganondorf. I hated 5he idea of Ganondorf being a direct reincarnation of demise, just like how Link and zelda are directs reincarnation of themselves in every game (which I never had a problem with.) The problem when you try to do it with Ganondorf is that it completely dehumanizes him as person, as if he was already destined to become evil the day he was born. It takes away the personal choices he made in ocarina of time to become the evil individual he would end up growing into being, making all of that gackstoru become completely irrelevant. I overcame this disappointment in in the lore when I stopped viewing demises curse as a reincarnation of him, but more as a manifestation of his hatred, as the game says. As demise was on his deathbed, with the realization that he was never going to hold the triforce in his hands, he made the petty and resentful decision to set a curse on the people who prevented him from attaining the triforce; a curse of bad luck, that in his absence, there would always end up being someone else in his place to pursue the triforce instead, guaranteeing that even if he failed, evil itself, which was the greater force he served, would still remain in the ring to keep fighting Link and zelda after he's gone. In a way, it was a very selfless thing demise did when he laid the curse, just a very evil form of selflessness where the thing greater than himself he was serving was malevolent.
Since this no longer makes Ganon an actual reincarnation of demise, just a manifestation, that means Ganondorf could have just as easily have chosen to be a better person and not become the tyrant pursuing the triforce that he did. However, if Ganondorf didn't chose to become a manifestation of demise, then somebody else would have risen up to ne the big naddie pf the series in his place, simple as.
With Link and zelda I don't have much of a problem at all with them being direct reincarnations of earlier versions of themselves, mostly because those reincarnations served a very important purpose in the fight and evil; they preserve the diamonds in the rough found in the fields of all that is good and true. They forged the good in their hearts all by themselves, but decided to go a step further and guarantee that they could use their goodness far beyond its original expiry date, when they died for the first time and would have been gone forever otherwise, at least in the case of Link.
Where tf is the edit button did UA-cam remove it? Sorry about the spelling mistakes
I just think a curse in general is kind of unnecessary and lame.
The reincarnations of Zelda and Link feel the same. As a princess, Zelda is always going to have to be held to a higher standard, that's the nature of royalty. So for a princess to have to cultivate good judgment to save her Kingdom...I don't think she has to be a literal reincarnation of the goddess to do that. And similarly, Link is supposed to be the every man - an ordinary person who, when extraordinary circumstances arise, he rises to become extraordinary. That could be ANYONE. and the point is, Link is anyone, we just recognize him in game after game because it's been 40 years.
I don't have a problem with the ending, i have a problem with the entire story up to that point.
Goddess, Goddess, Goddess plume, Goddess block, Goddess Shield, Goddess reincarnation, Isle of the Goddess, Goddess Goddess, Goddess..... Goddess.
...... Goddess
Zelda is a goddess, did you catch that!?
Well that's just a taste thing then.
You know, it's funny you point out the whole 'takes the metaphor and makes it literal' because, like, that pops up a LOT in Japanese fiction and media when you take a step back. Their metaphors are both literal and, well, metaphoric at the same time! Not saying that to comment on Skyward Sword's use of it, but it is kinda funny in an ironic sort of way.
There is a saying when it comes to myth: the symbol is the thing. This I don't disagree with. My issue, and what I'll reiterate from a previous comment is that in the previous entries, the bearer of wisdom is already in a place of high authority and intertwined with the gods; the hero is an ordinary boy who rises to meet fate; the villain is a monstrous tyrant. Those are already symbols being literal in the series and much more complicated, dynamic ones.
I can see where you’re coming from and I think you bring up some interesting points!
Personally I’ve always looked at it through the lens of choice. We know because of Totk that The Hero does not always have to be Link, we also know from Wind Waker you don’t have to be blood connected to a previous Hero to become one. I have always believed that to be a Hero you simply have to have the courage to stand up for those who cannot do it themselves. In most instances being Link.
On the flip side ganon also has the choice to push others aside. There are a lot more examples of bad people other than ganon laying waste to Hyrule. I’ve always disliked the fandoms obsession with a “good guy” Ganondorf, because it’s not who he is that makes him bad it’s his choices. Which is why I think a story about a bad Zelda would be ten times more interesting. Owing to what you said at the beginning. Skyward Sword is one of my favs and I actually really like the lore introduced. But that’s also just my opinion. All in all this is a pretty good video. Keep
Up the great work!
The Hero who assumes the title instead of being blood connected is more interesting to me. And I also strongly dislike good guy Ganondorf 🤣
@ thank goodness I’m not alone haha
No Tears of the Kingdom destroyed Zelda's lore!
🤣
Yep I'd rather have cgi lore than this clustertruck
@@dice5709 cgi lore?
I adore Skyward Sword, but I have long said that, without Skyward Sword, there would have been no Breath of the Wild.
For all the things I love about Skyward Sword, it set the stage for changing the story so much that The Legend of Zelda could be left behind in favor of Elder Souls or Dark Scrolls or whatever with a thin Zelda-colored coat of paint.
Back when gamers were picking between Skyward Sword and Skyrim, I was the only person I knew personally who stuck with Skyward Sword. My loyalty was rewarded by Zelda becoming Skyrim five and a half years later.
I will always love Skyward Sword, but I will likewise always despise what became of the series as a result.
There is a lot of Skyward Sword in Breath of the Wild from a gameplay perspective. You can see the nuggets of what would become later mechanics....Nintendo just blew open the segmented world.
Skyward Sword had some great dungeons. I would've been awesome to see what dungeons like that would've looked like in an open world, but alas.
Skyward Sword was 100% made as a story and timeline thing and very very much Hyrule Historia had it in mind. At that time they were very much promoting and minding Zelda Lore, and it was a big marketing deal that this game was "the beginning of Zelda" in all but direct words.
There may be some dissonant values here, perhaps a bit of a cultural clash, but I believe it's meant to be more of like "this is what destiny has presented to you, and it's up to you what do you do with it"
You're given a great power, or chosen for a great mission, and it's on your hands what it means. It's less of a cool trait you have, and more of an unfair responsability placed on you.
And it leaves you broken for something you didn't ask for, yet you chose to go through nonetheless.
Ocarina of Time, in particular, is very much a story about the choices of people past breaking the people present. I always interpreted Ganondorf, of all characters, as someone so obsessed with his "destiny" as ruler and king that he succumbed to it and all it means, believing he is at the top of all the chains of hatred and revenge and power, yet shackled by it. A king of a chessboard raging against the Gods for a destined prize, forever unable to be freed. It was his choice to pursue world conquest, but all because he believes it's his birthright.
(I basically always considered Twinrova the true villain of Ocarina of Time, they're the ones that shaped Ganondorf into who he is: the "gerudo demon king, ruler of the world" is nothing but their pet project)
Zelda similarly being, chosen, by prophetic visions and powers-- a big part of her traditional character, aside her relation to that tradition itself, is her relation to a responsability placed onto her. Her being chosen is less that she has the wisdom for it, and more that she now has a literal divine responsability to save the world. And, what makes Zelda as a meta character interesting is the various ways in that *someone can't possibly be able to handle that responsability* -- she messing up on what to do has been a narrative point since a Link to the Past, in Ocarina of Time she essentially is a child that in no way could've and spends the rest of her life dealing with having failed something impossible.
Same with the spirit of the hero. It's a call to adventure, imposed on you by others, and that will leave you broken with part of your life lost. Do you accept? Are we even going to explain to you the magnitude of what you're chosen for? There *is* a tragedy to Link's quest. Of even doing the "right thing" because he wants to.
That's why Wind Waker Link stands out, _he_ sets to adventure, nobody calls him. He'll break all his bones by himself.
I think this is a good take and one I generally agree with but it seems to me that ALL of that was an implicit theme of the series. Ganondorf and Zelda are foils - two characters with the weight of kingdoms on their shoulders and the consequences of separate actions. Link is the ordinary that must become extraordinary. That recurring theme runs through all Zelda games to the point that it deepens the more familiar you are with the series. To have a plot point spell out why the cycle exists, who and what are incarnations or will be reincarnations or blood or whatever..to me that is all made less interesting by SS than what came prior.
I wish the Zelda series completely moved on from Ganon as the villain in every game. Literally all of the other villains- Majora, Vaati, Zant, Ghirahim, Hilda- they were all more interesting. Null was a step in the right direction.
I hope they make more attempts to do new villains in new worlds for sure
I like Skyward Sword but it didn't really work for me as an origin story for the Zelda series. I hope they embrace BotW being a hard reboot and ignore the lore from the traditional Zeldas to start fresh. Better yet, ignore the lore added from the open world Zeldas too. It was fun having a timeline but it became ridiculous, so lets just stick with standalone stories.
I'd like Nintendo to have a firm stance and just say 'yeah we rebooted it.'
My personal biases aside, I've always had an issue with the fact that these things that are supposed to be the origins of the story and characters we've come to know and love barely resemble them. It feels like a retcon, even though it's not. When Demise laid out the curse, all I could think was "Bro, who TF even are you?"
Seems like they wanted to raise each archetype to its highest potential so Zelda is a literal goddess, the villain is a literal demon, and Link...well he's a human so we're not sure what to do with him and it all feels like a step too far.
@LittleBeanGreen yeah, we can't forget that the cool and mystical master sword is now an overbearing blue C3PO for some reason. They even doubled down on this in TOTK.
@@Mabbit_YL 🤣🤣
It kinda ruined the "lore" by putting too much emphasis on giving the series concrete "lore" to begin with. Zelda used to have the same kind of "every game is standalone, but we'll occasionally do callbacks and allusions for fun" attitude as the other main Nintendo properties. Skyward Sword got things bogged down too much in Star Wars Prequels-esque over focus on retrofitting things into some grand continuity that probably didn't exist at the time the game was made and definitely didn't exist when most of the previous games were made.
Now Zelda is bifurcated between games that dispense with dungeons almost completely and focus more and more on lore and history, and games that straight up adopt toy aesthetics to show how they're going full arcadey.
The best Zelda games, the big 3D ones from Ocarina to Twilight and the almost all great handheld ones, were in a middle ground where you'd have decent self-contained stories with memorable characters like Midna, Linebeck, and Marin, but not so much emphasis on retreading the lore about the Triforce and the main three's relationships. Much like the Star Wars Prequels and Sequels, it sucked some of the magic out of the universe by making it too lore heavy rather than letting things remain unspoken and implied.
As I was thinking about this video I was calling it the 'Midichlorian Problem' - an explanation for a thing that did not need an explanation.
No, it didn't ruin anything.
Well argued.
Demise's curse is a lamer version of Ganondorf's final words in OoT (then the earliest entry in the timeline), where he vows to return and "exterminate your descendants." Instead of Ganondorf himself showing agency and seeking revenge, Skyward Sword takes away the agency of Ganondorf, Link, and Zelda for all future games, the events of which were preordained. Combined with Skyward Sword replacing the Golden Goddeses with the figure of Hylia, whom Zelda is said to be the mortal incarnation of, it was an early example of Fujibayashi's disregard for Zelda's previously-established continuity, which became even more blatant in TotK.
Plus, having Ganondorf say that as a threat, regardless of whether it should be taken seriously or not, is a pretty badass way to go out 😎
No. It was *Tears* that ruined everything.
TotK's story is bad, Fs with pre-established key lore aspects, absolutely shatters all the Master Sword's reputation, unga bunga buff Dorf with little to no ambition other than "me strongest there is" uninteresting, nearly everyone forgot who you were despite this game taking place a mere 4-6 years after Wild, Rauru existing is an insult, no Fi, no breaking of the Demise curse despite it being falsely hinted being the case what with all the Skyward Sword PR this game got (I distinctly remember Skyward Sword being advertised as heavily linked to TotK somehow which, again, is misleading as on Nintendo's part), no dog petting, no hookshot spiderman swinging with the physics being suuuuch a driving factor in these newer Zelda games, no underwater exploration instead a damp dark smelly overgrown cave can't see jack, COLLOSAL missed opportunity to hitch the princess with her handsome knight in shining armor, no stakes since Zelda's sacrifice was reversed giving the story little to no agency or consequence, Link as a protagonist felt nonexistent feels like everyone else was the star of the show not the guy who's saving all their 🫏s, no Link backstory before any of this went down aka no Arryl 2 or Granny 2 aka NOT WIND WAKER, didn't make me cry like Twilight Princess, dungeons are STILL NOT dungeons (pulling a couple levers to open a door and then be treated with literally the same copy-paste cutscene at the very end with each champion? Yeah naw), sky islands hardly anything worth noting although they are pretty asf to look at, I was expecting a totally NEW revamped endgame super Saiyan master sword golden tier 4 legendary new hilt new everything but naw same design with a booboo scar and hilariously less powerful... Hoverbike completely and utterly borks any and all """"""""dungeon""""""""" traversal (I literally just flew over to all the switches in the fire """"""""""""temple"""""""""""""" with the hoverbike making it all redundant) and it PALES in comparison to THE Master Cycle the TRUE vehicle worth having and using.
I'll bite on the dungeons not being quite dungeons bit but a lot of this seems irrelevant to the point at hand😅
@@LittleBeanGreen I'm half-trolling lol, as in expressing how I overall feel towards the game with a pinch of strawman 😂
But yes I am serious about the story. Skyward Sword *enriched* the lore (especially with regards to Evil's Bane) while Tears scrambled it entirely, practically spat in its face.
@@Giggles_iJest You forgot the fact they dropped the subplot of the malice (stupidly renamed gloom since it's miasma in JP both times) slowly poisoning the land and effecting the people, which would've tied SS and other details in other games together a lot better.
Plus, just the overall factor of TotK being a very bad mash up of OoT, BotW, and SS all together, but doesn't do any elements anywhere near as good as the predecessors.
Translation issues from JP to English is the cause of these weird theories and inconsistencies
I don't think that's true because whether the curse is above Demise or of his larger tribe, it still mentions how evil is an incarnation of either one, and that the cycle of violence is a product of the on-the-nose curse.
@@LittleBeanGreen
In the majority of the situations, it is.
If you don't know JP, the fact that Zelda is a priestess (a Miko, not a priestess in the Western sense) in Skyward Sword can be lost in translation.
Demise's name is another example: he is called Shouen no Mono, aka Bringer of Desruction, but the english one is just called Demise,, which does not show who exactly he is.
And the fact that the curse comes from the Demon Tribe, we have no idea who really came up with this concept, Demise is aware that exists, and now we are.
@@mercianthane2503 Zelda being a Miko seems pretty consistent with what I'd consider (I looked it up and thought 'oh yeah, this is what she is). So not knowing the word doesn't take away from what can be inferred, in my estimation.
I don't have an issue with Demise's name or misnaming or whether a curse is his or the tribe's from which he hails. I just think the curse is lame.
@@LittleBeanGreen
Unless the curse of Demise is inspired by Shinto or the concept of Samsara. Since Skyward Sword, I've seen that the franchise is much more inspired by native japanese religion, folklore and traditions, and adding some elements from Hinduism too. Maybe there lies the reason of the Demon Tribe's Curse.
I love when Link is a nobody, just a dude who is standing up to do right and fight against wrongs. That’s one reason I think Wind Waker has one of the strongest stories in the series tbh
… still love SS for many reasons, but it introducing the curse of Demise does cheapen some things as you say, and Zelda fanatics (including me) end up clinging HARD to “rules” that don’t really need to be there.
Great work on this one LBG
Thanks for watching, Cap. I consider it a Star Wars midichlorian issue - a spiritual force (or in Zelda's case, a recurring theme) given a rationalization that doesn't really need to be rationalized...I didn't even consider the effect of creating 'rules,' as you say, and how that would be incredibly hard to disregard.
Sorry, but this is a pretty illiterate take on the whole cycle thing.
Granted, a lot of it has to do with the fact that most Western audiences are pretty illiterate when it comes to Japanese religion and mythology, this comment section is already proof enough of that. And NOA's localization team hasn't exactly made things any easier, probably because they are careful to downplay it in order to not upset religious types. But still, if you are gonna do a proper critique of this kind of things, you should make a bit of a bigger effort than just looking up articles about possible mistranslations in wiki articles made by people whose JLPT level doesn't go beyond N3.
There are many places I could start with for explaining this, but I guess the first and foremost is how people have a very poor grasp of what reincarnation is to Japanese people. As in, it's not a fantasy trope, but an actual religious believe they actually have in real life. Being surprised at its appearance in a Japanese story is like being surprised at the appearance of analogues to Heaven and Hell in a story made by Westerners of a Christian tradition.
The thing is, contrary to popular believe, the first game to explicitly mention reincarnation in the series was NOT "Skyward Sword". It was "The Wind Waker". This is something that has made me go up the walls for decades, because so many people to this day still believe that WW Link has "no relation to the hero whatsoever". But like I've already said somewhere else, people are too enamored with the "Link is literally me" narcisist fantasy to even register when Ganondorf explicitly says WW Link is the Hero of Time reborn after the battle with Puppet Ganon (and before someone tries to pull this off, no, it was not a mistranslation. He calls him 時の勇者の生まれかわり in Japanese, literally "the reincarnation of the Hero of Time). What King of Red Lions says earlier in the game was basically a red herring, not to mention that he seemed to correct Yabun about this the Hero of Winds being literally the same incarnation as the Hero of Time.
If you read enough Japanese media, you should know this is far from the ordinary. I've lost count of how many Japanese stories suddenly bring up the reincarnation of the characters, seemingly out of nowhere, and Western fans being confused at it and demanding explanations about how it exactly works. But like I said, for Japanese people reincarnation is not a fantasy trope. So when it appears, they don't perceive it as a new lore point being established, but rather the characters verbalizing something Japanese audiences presumed was the case from the beginning.
Again, the way Westerners try to nitpick the way it works would be the equivalent of Japanese audiences demanding explanations about how Heaven and Hell (or analogues of thereof) exactly work in a Christian-culture based story. How many sins you have to commit exactly to go to Hell? Which kind of sins send you to total damnation and which ones are given a pass? Do sins only count if you do them multiple times, or do they become a permanent stain in your soul even if you do them just once? Is it a Catholic interpretation, where you can purge your sins by repenting and confessing, or a Protestant tradition, in which only God can forgive you, so you don't know for sure until you die? Does Purgatory exist? If so, how many years do you spend there? Wouldn't Heaven get boring eventually?
Ridiculous, isn't it? Well, the same applies to the way people try to overanalyze reincarnation in Japanese stories, the Zelda series included.
Going more into your character about predestined heroes, which I guess is a bigger complaint, that's also pretty big misunderstanding. Just because you reincarnate, that doesn't mean whatever happens in your next life is completely predetermined, not more than things are predetermined in your current life moving forward. For starters, the Hero is always put to the test in most, if not all incarnations. Yes, this is because of gameplay reasons, but it's also part of how Japanese people perceive reincarnation. Not to mention that the Hero and the Goddess are NOT guaranteed to win. Even before Hyrule Historia introduced the "Fallen Timeline" nonsense (a story for another day), we had the Hero of Time failing at preventing Ganondorf from getting his hands on the Triforce. Sure, they defeat it 7 years later, but I'd argue the fact that Ganondorf rose to power puts a dent on the "predestined" argument. Ditto "Breath of the Wild" and the Great Calamity, by the way. Of course, we know at the end of each story the hero is going to win in the end. But that's more because of storytelling conventions and expectations, not because reincarnation makes things predetermined.
Then there's the whole Zelda being the goddess Hylia mortal form, which is based on another Japanese culture artifact, albeit to be fair, this one is less well known. Namely, the concept of "arahitogami" (現人神), or "akitsukami" (現御神), or "manifest god", in which it was believed that the Emperor of Japan was both a descendant and a reincarnation of the Goddess Amaterasu. This is something that was believed since at least the 8th century, but it was abolished after World War II (for now. I think the believe was on and off throughout the centuries, but I have to fact check this last one). So what SS did was to essentially apply that concept to Zelda herself with the Goddess Hylia. Now, to be fair, this isn't something as ingrained in Japanese culture as just regular reincarnation, but it's not something that would surprise them all that much either.
Then, on a more personal note, why does making reincarnation explicit devalue anything compared to keeping things vague? I just don't get it. Well, at least not beyond the aforementioned "Link is literally me" fantasy, in which apparently people can't relate to characters unless they match themselves perfectly, for some reason, and I guess being "a predestined hero" puts a dent on that. And before you mention it, yeah, I know the developers have always said that Link is just an avatar for the player, but I've always called BS on that. It shows a level of media illiteracy on the developers' part that is frankly quite worrisome. True avatar characters just aren't like Link at all. He's at best a hybrid of an avatar and an established character, and only because he's a silent protagonist. Apart from that, there's little to nothing about Link for him to truly count as a true player avatar beyond what any other type of character is supposed to be: he always has a well established backstory, pre established relationships, and even broad yet well defined character traits in which the player has little to no say about.
Anyway, sorry for the text wall, but this is something that truly annoys me.
I agree with you - to me it feels like SS overanalyzed reincarnation and gave reasons for it that weren't necessary as a justification for Nintendo's soon to be published timeline. I'm not surprised by reincarnation, I'm disappointed that it was explained to me when I didn't ask for it. It was largely implied throughout the whole series and we could have discussions about it. Although I would argue my preference would be that they weren't reincarnations, not in the literal sense but that's besides the point.
I'll offer a Western metaphor to make my point more clear: Imagine a long-running series that takes place in a fallen world where a priest, through his holy deeds, tries to return order and a conman, swindling and manipulative, is always sowing chaos. Over time, though iterations of these characters change and grow, complexities get added, nuances introduced, when we play this series you know you will be the priest battling against the conman. Then imagine, once this series is long established, that an entry comes along that says hey - did you know the priest is actually literally God? Did you know the conman is actually literally the Devil? Did you know that every game is just the battle between God and the Devil finding each other again and again forever? If you find that more interesting, great - I don't. And that's really my point. One interpretation isn't inherently better than the other but I prefer to have my characters not so on-the-nose. For the game to say 'these three 'souls' are locked in eternal combat'...that is less interesting to me than people of their time rising to the occasion (except Link, who apparently always has the hero's blood which as I say in the video, I find to be a tired trope).
Just as a last bit: Zelda is made by a Japanese company but steeped in Western fantasy folklore. To me that doesn't make it either Eastern or Western, but a weird bit of both, which probably explains its broad popular appeal and longevity. In that same way, Link is his own character but also a vessel for the player to project onto. That's pretty interesting.
for me the spirit of hero and all just symbolizes that always there will be evil(demise,ganon, vaati nightmares), good(zelda) and someone who is not necessary neither and is an avarage guy but has to fight evil or otherwise it will destroy everything he has and thus himself becomes a hero
That's how I interpret it as well and my larger issue is more with the 'chosen hero' or the 'blood descendant.' But alas.
The problem with SS is instead of writing an INTERESTING story, they tried to make an "Epic" one.
Wind Waker and TP and Oot and MM all had UNIQUE stories that Nintendo WANTED to tell. SS felt like they were forced to make a beginning to the series and its apparent they didnt have passion for it
The relationship with Link and Zelda is definitely the best in the series but I understand what you mean about the story as a whole. For an origins story they definitely could have done better. All the games before SS talked about the three golden goddesses but then SS explains that who they really worship is Hylia and apparently its ALWAYS been that way.
I think your distinction between interesting and epic is a good one, but I also think (to the comment above) the writing of Link and Zelda's relationship, and some of the side character writing as well, is some of the series' best.
TP is set up more as an actual epic fantasy tale though.
SS more so just seems to be influenced by whatever Fujibayashi feels needs to be included within the Zelda series. Because he made Minish Cap as well, and now botw/totk. He very much likes setting up an early relationship with Zelda, before taking her away from the player to save, all while setting her up as this extra form of a divine entity.
Yes, it did
well argued 😆
Echoes of Wisdom was the one with the lame lore...
Zelda talked to the Goddesses. That was pretty cool.